Examining big brother's purpose for using electronic performance monitoring

Abstract

We examined whether the reason offered for electronic performance monitoring (EPM) influenced participants' performance, stress, motivation, and satisfaction. Participants performed a data‐entry task in one of five experimental conditions. In one condition, participants were not electronically monitored. In the remaining conditions, participants were electronically monitored but the explanation varied. One group was told that they would be electronically monitored but were given no explanation. Another group was told that EPM would be used to research factors associated with performance. In the developmental condition, participants were told that EPM would be used to provide them with feedback to improve performance, and in the administrative condition, participants were informed that EPM would be used to distribute rewards and punishments. Administrative condition participants had higher motivation and performance yet relatively low stress and dissatisfaction levels. Thus, EPM may enhance performance on simple, repetitive tasks without necessarily producing negative outcomes.

EPM 20/20: A Review, Framework, and Research Agenda for Electronic Performance Monitoring

“…Over the past two decades, scholars have increasingly moved away from examining EPM dichotomously (present or absent) toward more precise exploration of the effects of EPM characteristics, such as the purpose (e.g., Bartels & Nordstrom, 2012; Holman, Chissick, & Totterdell, 2002), timing (e.g., Alder, 2007; Watson et al, 2013), target (e.g., Ambrose & Alder, 2000), intensity (e.g., Alge, Ballinger, & Green, 2004; Laird et al, 2018), scope (e.g., Moorman & Wells, 2003), control (e.g., McNall & Stanton, 2011), feedback delivery (e.g., Holman et al, 2002; Moorman & Wells, 2003), transparency (e.g., Lowry, Posey, Bennett, & Roberts, 2015; McNall & Roch, 2009), and clarity (e.g., Holman et al, 2002). Results from EPM research conducted over the past 20 years suggest that to understand the effects of a particular use of EPM, one must examine the psychological characteristics of that use.…”

“…Research has demonstrated that purpose, and individual perceptions about purpose, influences reactions to EPM (McNall & Stanton, 2011; Wells et al, 2007). Researchers have examined EPM systems with a variety of purposes, including performance appraisals (e.g., Fenner, Lerch, & Kulik, 1993), punishment (e.g., Bartels & Nordstrom, 2012; McNall & Stanton, 2011), training (e.g., Thompson, Sebastianelli, & Murray, 2009), development (e.g., McNall & Roch, 2009; Wells et al, 2007), location tracking (e.g., Shirish, Chandra, & Srivastava, 2017), administration (e.g., Karim, 2015), sustainability (e.g., Bolderdijk, Steg, & Postmes, 2013), safety (e.g., Heflin, 2012), and EPM used for no clear purpose at all (e.g., McNall & Roch, 2007). Our typology organizes these purposes into four categories, described next: (a) performance appraisal, loss prevention, and profit ( performance ); (b) development, growth, and training ( development ); (c) administrative and safety ( admin and safety ); and (d) surveillance and authoritarian control ( surveillance ).…”

“…Performance EPM conveys organizational expectations and clarifies which aspects of work are valued (Stanton & Julian, 2002). Researchers have consistently found positive relationships between performance EPM and task performance when focusing on narrow performance dimensions (e.g., Bartels & Nordstrom 2012; Stanton & Julian, 2002). For example, numerous experimental studies have found performance EPM to increase participant task speed on typing, data entry, and sorting tasks (e.g., Bartels & Nordstrom, 2012; Griffith, 1993; Stanton & Julian, 2002).…”

“…Results are mixed regarding the effect of performance EPM on attitudes. Several studies have found that performance EPM is associated with increased task motivation and job dedication (Bartels & Nordstrom, 2012; Moorman & Wells, 2003; Stanton & Julian, 2002), greater perceptions of procedural justice (McNall & Roch, 2007; Moorman & Wells, 2003), and increased task satisfaction (Stanton & Julian, 2002). Others have found that performance EPM, particularly when used to punish, is associated with decreased job satisfaction, commitment, and perceived organizational support and increased feelings of stress and burnout (e.g., I.…”

“…Researchers have tended to study the effects of development EPM on task performance using relatively simple tasks and goals that participants may not accept as their own. A majority of the empirical studies that we identified that examined development EPM did so in a lab setting, typically with simple tasks for which participants likely had little interest (e.g., Alder & Ambrose, 2005; Bartels & Nordstrom, 2012). Goal commitment and motivation are important factors that influence performance (Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988), and it is unlikely that participants in lab settings are invested.…”